"On White Privilege"

[rturner76]

Is this the secular version of original sin?

I wouldn't say it's "original sin" as much as "sins of the father."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Granted, it's been a while since I read the books.

But the point is still made: all fictional characters are adapted when translated to a different medium, with lots of specific details changed. Fleming also didn't describe Bond as being scotish like Sean Connery, a pacifist like Roger Moore or having blonde hair like Daniel Craig, and all have been convincing in the role, to varying degrees.

So there's no reason why Idris Elba can't play a version of James Bond.

-- A2SG, casting a white man as Bill Cosby, on the other hand, would be much more of a challenge....

Why?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So the past 400-500 year system of oppression has no bearing on the children of today? Society has not been negatively affected by this history/system today?

I didn't say that...I'm sure that it's had some effects. However, to characterize the situation of today's black youth as "black slave-white master" is not only a horrible exaggeration...but somewhat racist.

As for society being "negatively affected"...what do you mean by that? Are you saying that things would be improved or in some significant way different if it were a system of "black privilege" that we were living in?

Also the fact that there are 5 black CEOs in Americas 500 largest companies is the fault of black people for not putting forward qualified candidates right? It has nothing to do with discrimination

1. I'm not sure that being the most "qualified" necessarily has anything to do with being CEO of a fortune 500 company.

2. Again, I don't know that it has anything to do with discrimination.

3. What does this example have to do with white privilege in the first place? Do you think that the whiteness of CEOs has any sort of advantages or privileges that extend to white people in general? Does it make my life better or in some way make me more likely to be a CEO myself? I can't think of any way in which this impacts my life, your life, or realistically the lives of any of the 350 million or so people in this nation. It's an almost silly suggestion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Which is progress from a generation or so back.

Looks like we're headed in the right direction.

Or we've reached our destination. Ever hear the expression "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? It's the idea that by continually trying to "improve" something that's already quite good...you stand more of a chance to mess it up and make things worse.

Well, to be fair, my "treatment" wasn't much of an issue really....we didn't have to work together all that much, if at all. But the point remains: if you can recognize that you're basing decisions on assumptions or prejudices rather than individuals, then you can decide not to do it any more, going forward.

That's a pretty big "if". Funny enough, in looking at studies during our little conversation...I found one by Stanford university that actually suggests that repeating these kinds statistics to people over and over actually justifies their racial bias in their minds to some extent...and increases their resistance to change.

What do you think of that? The possibility that repeating these things time and time again actually worsens the problem?

All it requires is a desire to change, and you can.

We're entering into some rather philosophical territory. I'll agree in some situations that your statement is true.

Because changing one's name doesn't fix the problem, it exacerbates it.

How so?

Doing that basically says that it's "wrong" to have a name that doesn't sound white.

Is this about gaining acceptance for uncommon names or gaining employment? Certainly you'd understand that this might only need to be a solution for a few generations until enough employers are blacks who have no such prejudices.

Besides, shouldn't people be allowed to name their kids whatever name they like? Shouldn't we be judged by our abilities rather than solely by our name?

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that people react more favorably to the familiar than the unfamiliar. I don't know that it ever will.

Dunno for sure....probably some people just started naming girls Ashley and the name took off. I actually know a girl named Kevin. And that's also my brother's name.

I knew a guy named Lauren, he wasn't happy about it. Regardless, it doesn't take a bunch of blaming and finger pointing to change such things...

Of course. And isn't that what we're doing here, swapping opinions back and forth?

Sort of...I'll tell you this, when you feel like discussing your opinions on the causes of these problems, I'll discuss my opinions on the way things "should be". Deal?

Either one, really. Even back then, many people believed that owning slaves was wrong, even if it was legal.

Ok then, me personally...I believe it's wrong to own slaves, except in a few very specific situations. I would imagine back then, slave owners thought it was right to own slaves...and the slaves themselves probably thought it was wrong.

Does that answer your question?

Personally, I go by my conscience. How you determine it is up to you.

If you feel that inequality due to racial bias is a good thing, feel free to defend the practice. If not, then shouldn't we try to change it?

Well, I need to see it exists first. I'm certain that inequalities exist...but the idea they're because of racial bias isn't an assumption I'm willing to jump to.

We've been using accountants as an example, but if you prefer, feel free to answer the question for any profession you like: who would make a better worker in your field, John or Malik?

I don't know, you haven't given me anything except their names.

Are you honestly saying that no person in the world would ever even consider taking a boat tour with someone named Boaty McBoatface, even just for kicks? For no more reason than to say to the folks back home, "you'll never guess what our tour guide's name was!"

Some people might be willing to take a tour of German WW2 landmarks with a guy named Adolf Hitler just to say they did...but I think it's a fair assumption that the tour company is going to experience some problems related to that name.

Yeah, you would. How else would you know how much business they'd bring in?

I know of a sales rep named Candy Kane. She's very successful at her job.

I know a guy named Jamal who's never really had any trouble finding employment. Does my one example disprove common knowledge of the topic?

What did you say that contradicts what I said? You claim that Boaty McBoatface won't make a decent tour guide or accountant...and there's no basis for that assessment, since we have no idea what qualifications the individual has for either field. The only data we have is the name. And based on that, and that alone, you're willing to dismiss this individual's job qualifications out of hand.

Well we both know that people often react to names in ways that they shouldn't necessarily....right? If you think an employer is going to react unfavorably with the name...what in the world makes you think the general public is any different?

I'd say it's a dead on assessment...but feel free to let me know what you've said that I missed that's contrary to this assessment. I'm more than willing to listen.

I've explained that already several times now...what part aren't you getting?

I was about to start googling for those studies, I don't have them on hand, but then I read this first:

Let me know if you find any...I didn't.

What's your point here: that there is no discrimination based on how "white" a name sounds, or that there is, and it's perfectly okay?

I need to know which point you're making so I can better respond to it. So pick one, and get back to me, okay?

My point is that it may have nothing to do with "whiteness" of a name and everything to do with familiarity...in which case I'm not certain that there's anything wrong with that.

I like to think I'm doing more than complaining...I thought I was having an interesting discussion on the subject. At least, I was interested, and have been enjoying it.

-- A2SG, I certainly hope you have been too.....

I've been enjoying it. I only use the word complaining because that's how it appears to me when a discussion is only about problems and almost never about solutions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He said throughout U.S. history.

And I said U.S. race relations "throughout history"....no real difference there.

 

[Rick Otto]

And I said U.S. race relations "throughout history"....no real difference there.

I notice a lot of things don't make a real difference.

 

[A2SG]

Why?

Because Bill Cosby isn't fictional.

-- A2SG, not saying it can't be done, just that it would be a challenge.....

 

[A2SG]

Or we've reached our destination. Ever hear the expression "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? It's the idea that by continually trying to "improve" something that's already quite good...you stand more of a chance to mess it up and make things worse.

Is it your contention that racial inequality as it stands today is "quite good"? I must respectfully disagree.

However, that you can believe that, given Ferguson and all that's come since, is about a far better example of white privilege than any I could possibly come up with.

That's a pretty big "if".

I dunno...some can manage it.

Funny enough, in looking at studies during our little conversation...I found one by Stanford university that actually suggests that repeating these kinds statistics to people over and over actually justifies their racial bias in their minds to some extent...and increases their resistance to change.

What do you think of that? The possibility that repeating these things time and time again actually worsens the problem?

Many people fall into the trap of thinking things are the way they are, and there's nothing anyone can do to change them. Then a new generation comes along, and it changes anyway.

Look at the world you grew up in, and then look at today. Has it changed any?

We're entering into some rather philosophical territory. I'll agree in some situations that your statement is true.

Thank you.

How so?

It perpetuates the idea that to succeed in the US, you have to pass for "white," or at least get as close as possible.

There's no objective reason why Malik is less qualified for any job than John, so there's no objective reason to perpetuate the idea that John is a better name.

Is this about gaining acceptance for uncommon names or gaining employment? Certainly you'd understand that this might only need to be a solution for a few generations until enough employers are blacks who have no such prejudices.

Probably, sure. But if we never confront assumptions like that, and actively try to change them, they remain. If every black parent figured it'd be better to name their kids John or James, there'd be no Malik's left, no matter how many black employers there are.

I don't know about you, but I like a variety of names.

I agree. That doesn't change the fact that people react more favorably to the familiar than the unfamiliar. I don't know that it ever will.

Then we have to make sure Malik is just as familiar a name as John. And that black people are just as familiar as white ones.

Equality, in other words.

I knew a guy named Lauren, he wasn't happy about it. Regardless, it doesn't take a bunch of blaming and finger pointing to change such things...

Another reason I prefer not to do such things.

Sort of...I'll tell you this, when you feel like discussing your opinions on the causes of these problems, I'll discuss my opinions on the way things "should be". Deal?

I'm still unsure of why we need to do one to discuss the other. There are a lot of factors that come into play, a lot of history, and even if we discuss all of it for years, we may never come any closer to determining even the major causes, let alone all of them.

There's an entire scientific field dedicated to studying such things, it's called sociology. And many people still regard that science as a "soft" science, considering its ideas nothing more than opinion.

Ok then, me personally...I believe it's wrong to own slaves, except in a few very specific situations. I would imagine back then, slave owners thought it was right to own slaves...and the slaves themselves probably thought it was wrong.

Does that answer your question?

Yup. Just because we can do something, that doesn't mean we should.

Well, I need to see it exists first. I'm certain that inequalities exist...but the idea they're because of racial bias isn't an assumption I'm willing to jump to.

Okay, fair enough. why not talk to people who've experienced it first hand, and try to see the situation from their perspective?

To not have to see the inequalities race brings every day is kind of the basic definition of white privilege, I'd say.

I don't know, you haven't given me anything except their names.

Exactly the point.

Some people might be willing to take a tour of German WW2 landmarks with a guy named Adolf Hitler just to say they did...but I think it's a fair assumption that the tour company is going to experience some problems related to that name.

Having a silly or unusual name is not the same as having an infamous one. Or even a famous name without it being infamous...do you know the actor Albert Brooks? Know what his birth name is?

I know a guy named Jamal who's never really had any trouble finding employment. Does my one example disprove common knowledge of the topic?

No more than the fact that one jewish man survived living in Nazi Germany disproves the experiences of millions more.

Yeah, I went there...you already Godwined this thing with the last example, I figured why not double down on it.

Well we both know that people often react to names in ways that they shouldn't necessarily....right? If you think an employer is going to react unfavorably with the name...what in the world makes you think the general public is any different?

Just because some people have prejudices, that more of them do doesn't justify the prejudice. Or, to put it another way, you can't judge a book by it's cover. A name, no matter how odd or unusual, is not a good indicator of job skill or experience. Making a conclusion based on a person's name alone is a prejudice, not a sound judgment.

I've explained that already several times now...what part aren't you getting?

The part where you prove Boaty McBoatface is a lousy accountant...or tour guide, brick layer, marine biologist, neurosurgeon....or what have you.

My point is that it may have nothing to do with "whiteness" of a name and everything to do with familiarity...in which case I'm not certain that there's anything wrong with that.

That doesn't change the question: what makes someone with an unfamiliar name a lousy accountant....or tour guide, brick layer, marine biologist, neurosurgeon....or what have you.

I've been enjoying it. I only use the word complaining because that's how it appears to me when a discussion is only about problems and almost never about solutions.

Well, to be fair, I have been discussing solutions, and I'm more than willing to hear any you'd care to suggest.

-- A2SG, glad to know you're also enjoying this....too often people think internet debates have to be acrimonious, and I love it when that's proven wrong....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know if it's "severely" limited, but I will admit I don't see everything.

If you feel my observations are wrong, feel free to show me how.

Ok. I'd say you're jumping to the conclusion that some of the perceived "inequalities" in our society are due to racial bias.

For example...what if the reason blacks are subjected to more traffic stops by police are because they (on average) incur more traffic violations? Or some other set of circumstances that has nothing to do with racial bias?

My point is that we all should do something about it. I never singled white hetero males out.

You may not have...but those who echo your sentiments do. It's always the presumption that white heterosexual men are to blame and need to change. At one time, this viewpoint might even have been justified...now, I don't think it is.

But, that being said, wouldn't you agree that if we're trying to effect positive change in hiring, say, wouldn't it be incumbent upon those who do the hiring to be involved? If a large number of employers are white hetero males, then they would naturally be part of the discussion.

Unfortunately, the study everyone refers to didn't indicate the race of the employers. It also only studied the perception of "black names" compared to "white names"...leaving open a lot of possibilities.

Nope, sorry.

It's quite good...and long overdue. I might be able to find it if you're interested.

That could very well be a large part of the reason why I've been going out of my way not to assign blame.

Except in the case of employers as you did above.

Are you contending that it's increased over time? I'd like to see the statistics you're basing that on.

No...I'm contending that it's always been at a significantly higher rate than other races. It's my understanding that this has been the case as long as we've kept those statistics.

We have the promise of equality under the law, sure. Let's make it more of a reality.

What?!? If we already have equality under the law...how can we get more equality under the law?

The goal is a more perfect union, the closer we get to that, the better, in my book.

Again, I fear that in our days...the perfect is the enemy of the good.

We've eliminated laws that specifically made blacks unequal....and now we're working on the systemic bias that makes them unequal. The more we eliminate that, the better.

Yet we don't even know that systemic bias is making anyone unequal. You see how pursuing this as a problem, if it's not the cause of said inequalities, can actually make things worse....don't you?

If it seems as if I'm vague, that's only because we're dealing with something that isn'e quantifiable. More equal is better than less, but I can't put a number on it, so I can't say how much more is needed.

Well then I can't say if I agree with your notion of "forward".

Which is, again, why I steadfastly refuse to assign blame. As I've said a few times already, it's counterproductive. And you've just illustrated why.

How so?

Maybe so, but the most common names in the US tend to be white names, on average. For example, in 1976, the most popular baby names were: Michael, Jason, Christopher, David, James, John, Robert, Brian, Matthew and Daniel for boys; girls: Jennifer, Amy, Melissa, Heather, Angela, Michelle, Kimberly, Jessica, Lisa, Amanda. (I picked 1976 because that would make these people around 40 yrs old, and more likely to be positions of authority).

And? Your point is? I don't see anything wrong with those names.

No doubt it should be. But if having a name that isn't white doesn't even get your resume seen, those other factors don't make a difference.

I don't know about resumes being seen....all the study indicates is call backs.

To be fair, I didn't bring it up. The OP did. But it is the subject of this thread.

True.

Not sure how it could mean nothing at all....looking around you and not seeing anyone who looks like you, who shares your background, in a large picture of the country you live in. Granted, it might discourage you from even trying to participate in the country beyond your own neighborhood, or it might push you out into the world to BE an example for other kids like you...but either way, it would mean something.

Well it might only mean that you're a minority in that nation.

If by "for" you mean do I acknowledge that's how the media works, then sure.

I meant more like "approve".

But you're dissin' my man Idris! Can you at least admit, whether he gets the part or not, he'd still make an excellent James Bond?

I'd like to at least see him in a similar role first.

I'm still not seeing how taking something that has traditionally been black and using white performers instead is defying tradition, given things like minstrel shows, Elvis, Led Zeppelin, etc.

It's defying tradition in exactly the same way as taking a black performer and placing him in a white role. What's hard to understand about that?

There is one significant difference here, though: Bill Cosby is a black man. James Bond is a fictional character who could be black, or white. In fact, I have read a couple of Ian Fleming's novels, and I don't recall him specifying Bond's race one way or the other.

Bill Cosby was playing a character though...although if it's the name that bothers you, we could call him Will Cosby.

Go for it. Let me know how it works out for ya.

Will do.

They can make whatever ones they like.

I think I'll pass on that. I'd rather discuss the issue at hand rather than my personal life.

Your contention was that my observations were incorrect. Your choice to not explain why makes it look like they were correct all along.

Then you ignored what I actually said.

In what way is my assessment wrong?

I offered one earlier: my friend the black surgeon. He's been stopped over 30 times in his life, I've been stopped maybe two or three times.

You think this is because of racial bias? What if I told you they have studies (not widely publicized) that dispel that myth?

Or what if I told you that, as someone who has done multiple traffic stops, you hardly ever know the race/gender/age etc of the driver before stopping them?

What if I told you that they've done studies with red light cameras that indicate blacks run red lights at a disproportionate rate...and a study done on nighttime traffic stops (the idea being that cops were unlikely to see the race of the driver) indicate that our differences between the rate at which whites and blacks get pulled over have nothing to do with racial bias?

Dude, give me a break. I have those studies bookmarked, I'll check 'em out when I can, okay?

But if you have specific data you want to discuss, feel free to present that information and I'll discuss it as best I can.

Had a chance yet? I don't want to be the only one looking for facts here...

True. Which is why we should be striving for competent rulers WITHOUT using race as the sole determiner of competence...or even a significant one. Just as an example, do you think that Barack Obama is the first black man in the history of the US qualified to be president? Could there have been others before him? Why didn't they get elected?

Well...

Before you say "because they didn't run," think about why they didn't.

You're saying the sole reason they didn't run is race?

Or maybe they actually patrol black neighborhoods more because they believe blacks are more likely to commit crimes. In that case, they'd catch more, and the prophecy is self-fulfilled.

It's important to find out then isn't it? Much better to find out if it's actually racial bias or perhaps the black community before we start telling people they need to change...or worse, enact policies which might exacerbate the problem.

Even if true (a BIG if), it doesn't follow that any black person is more likely to be a criminal than any white person.

There are studies that show black neighborhoods have more unsolved crimes...at least with respect to murders. So "if" isn't really the question...

We can blame police for policing blacks disproportionately...resulting in more blacks in prison/arrested/etc. We could also blame police for not policing blacks enough...resulting in their neighborhoods having more unsolved crimes/murders. We cannot blame the police for both, however...because that would be contradictory and hypocritical. No...racial bias won't explain both problems.

Let's also consider though, that bias isn't the problem at all....and it's entirely possible blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than other races. That actually would explain both problems.

?? How?

I meant "gotcha" as in "I understand".

We're still talking more blacks arrested, which is not the same thing as saying more blacks committed crimes. We have no information about crimes where the perpetrator wasn't found....for either blacks or whites.

Your equation is based on incomplete information, so it's accuracy is questionable.

This is part of what's frustrating about this discussion. You've got no problem jumping to the conclusion that racial bias is at fault when the data is incomplete. Whenever it looks like the problem might be something else though...suddenly incomplete data is a big issue.

Do you want to have this discussion and include data that we can find or understand? Or do you want to discard any incomplete data (which is basically all of it) and just make your argument/position based upon presumptions? You can't have it both ways.

We've got studies that show blacks get pulled over more often than whites. Let's assume those numbers are true...

We've also got studies showing blacks commit more traffic violations (assuming that the police can't identify them as black at night, eliminating racial bias) and run red lights at a disproportionate rate, similar to the rate at which they get pulled over.

We shouldn't even be discussing racial bias at this point...we should be discussing why blacks think they can violate the law more often than other races.

So discuss it. Why do you think?

I think there's several problems in the black community with regards to how they view police and crime that cause this problem.

All the more reason to not assume there's only one cause behind it all. And even more reason to do something about it rather than debate endlessly the possible causes until we've come to a definitive concensus on that.

So we're jumping to the conclusion that it's racial bias by the police then? Because as far as I'm concerned, we've beaten that horse to death and it's time to consider other causes. Frankly, I don't understand your rationale for jumping to conclusions for this. We've written laws, policies, even given training for the past 30+ years to attempt to eliminate police bias against blacks. Yet the problem hasn't disappeared...or even significantly changed. Blacks are disproportionately represented in crime. Isn't it time to look elsewhere yet?

Nope.

Why not? Why wouldn't a black employer be 50% less likely to hire a white sounding name?

Are you tryhing to argue that we need a new bubonic plague? If not, I'm unclear on the point you're trying to make.

If you're suggesting methods to use in order to leave society better off...um, maybe you should keep thinking about it.

It was a rather difficult example. Im simply showing how something which can benefit society isn't necessarily desirable at all. You certainly wouldn't want to hurt a white man's chances at a job just to improve a black man's chances....but not everyone on your side is so wise.

It means a lot of things, but in this case, less inequality due to racial bias.

That's always a good thing. Do you think inequalities can ever be completely eliminated? Or do we have to accept that this is a flawed part of human nature at some point and say that we've done all we reasonably can?

You might have a point, IF that represents the view of a large majority of blacks toward whites.

Does it?

-- A2SG, not sure it does, but if you want to make the case, feel free....

Could be worth looking into when you get the time. I don't think you'll find too many studies though. The assumption of most of society is that the problem is all on the side of whites...so we're inundated with studies about the views of whites. Part of equality means dropping such assumptions and examining all sides of a problem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because Bill Cosby isn't fictional.

-- A2SG, not saying it can't be done, just that it would be a challenge.....

You're aware that Bill Cosby was just playing a fictional character named Bill Cosby....right? The character and the real life Bill Cosby aren't the same person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I notice a lot of things don't make a real difference.

Ok? I'm not sure what you mean by that...but I'm all ears if you feel like explaining.

 

[A2SG]

You're aware that Bill Cosby was just playing a fictional character named Bill Cosby....right? The character and the real life Bill Cosby aren't the same person.

No, Bill Cosby did not play Bill Cosby on TV. He played Chet Kincaid on "The Bill Cosby Show," Heathcliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show," Guy Hanks on "The Cosby Mysteries" and Hilton Lucas on "Cosby," but despite those shows having Cosby in the title, none of them had a character named Bill Cosby. The closest you can get is Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, but he was not a character on that show, he was the host.

-- A2SG, granted, you could fictionalize Cosby with a white actor if you want to....but, as I said, it would be a challenge....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it your contention that racial inequality as it stands today is "quite good"? I must respectfully disagree.
.

I don't know that I'd use the words "quite good"...

You asked my opinion and I gave it. If my opinion sounds "quite good" to you...you can characterize it that way if you like, but own it....It's your interpretation of what I said.

However, that you can believe that, given Ferguson and all that's come since, is about a far better example of white privilege than any I could possibly come up with..

Whoa...why is my opinion suddenly an "example of white privilege"?

I'd like an answer to that before I respond to the rest of your post.

If you think my opinion is inaccurate, or incomplete in some way...by all means, say that and kindly explain why.

What you said, however, makes it sound like my opinion doesn't matter or should be discounted because...I'm white. I know you're not that racist (at least I hope so) so please explain what you meant by that comment before I proceed.

After all, there's not much point to continuing this discussion if you intend to disregard what I say because I'm white.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, Bill Cosby did not play Bill Cosby on TV. He played Chet Kincaid on "The Bill Cosby Show," Heathcliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show," Guy Hanks on "The Cosby Mysteries" and Hilton Lucas on "Cosby," but despite those shows having Cosby in the title, none of them had a character named Bill Cosby. The closest you can get is Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, but he was not a character on that show, he was the host.

-- A2SG, granted, you could fictionalize Cosby with a white actor if you want to....but, as I said, it would be a challenge....

Lol I totally forgot about his name on the Cosby show. Fine, we'll call it the Will Cosby show so everyone understand which show's tradition we're breaking.

Is it still a good tradition to break?

If you prefer...we could use the 90s show Martin as an example.

 

[A2SG]

Ok. I'd say you're jumping to the conclusion that some of the perceived "inequalities" in our society are due to racial bias.

For example...what if the reason blacks are subjected to more traffic stops by police are because they (on average) incur more traffic violations? Or some other set of circumstances that has nothing to do with racial bias?

Are you prepared to prove that black people are worse drivers than white people? Because if you cannot definitively prove that, you have no case.

Good luck!

You may not have...but those who echo your sentiments do.

Then take it up with them. I'm not responsible for the arguments other people make, and I can't respond to them.

It's always the presumption that white heterosexual men are to blame and need to change. At one time, this viewpoint might even have been justified...now, I don't think it is.

Again, I'm still not interested in assigning blame.

Unfortunately, the study everyone refers to didn't indicate the race of the employers. It also only studied the perception of "black names" compared to "white names"...leaving open a lot of possibilities.

Such as?

It's quite good...and long overdue. I might be able to find it if you're interested.

If you link it, I'll check it out. I gotta say, though, that while I do like a lot of Maher's stuff, I do find him more than a little full of himself a lot of the time.

Except in the case of employers as you did above.

Nope, didn't blame them for anything either.

No...I'm contending that it's always been at a significantly higher rate than other races. It's my understanding that this has been the case as long as we've kept those statistics.

Which has been since when, exactly? That might be a clue there.

But, if true, what does this data suggest? If you're trying to make the case that black people are, as a race, more prone to criminal activity than those of other races...that'd be a hard case to make. You'd have to compare the crime rates of black people toward those of other races in other countries as well, across the globe.

Since skin color isn't a significant biological distinction in humans, though, the reason for a higher crime rate is highly unlikely to be race, so if you're looking for a cause, it's probably not biology.

Which leaves us with the reason for a higher crime rate being social, not biological, and tied in with the history of black people in the US.

Now, if we want to explore causes further, we can study the history of black people in the US in greater detail...or we could simply try our best in the future to not assume every black person is a criminal, and treat them as if they were.

I dunno, which sounds more practical and productive to you?

What?!? If we already have equality under the law...how can we get more equality under the law?

I'd like to see that equality be more of a reality than a legal principle we try to follow.

Again, I fear that in our days...the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Only if you feel racial inequality in today's world is good enough.

Ask black people if it is, see what they tell you. It's a daily reality for them, it isn't a daily reality for white folks. That's white privilege for ya.

Yet we don't even know that systemic bias is making anyone unequal. You see how pursuing this as a problem, if it's not the cause of said inequalities, can actually make things worse....don't you?

How? If we all make a concerted effort to treat everyone equally, regardless of race, how can that possibly be worse than the systemic bias we have currently?

Well then I can't say if I agree with your notion of "forward".

Why not? Isn't equality a good thing? How is too much equality a bad thing?

How so?

If you blame someone for causing a problem, especially one that's existed for longer than the person has likely been alive, it makes them defensive, and resistant to change. If, on the other hand, you simply acknowledge that the problem exists, and that we all can help fix it, there's much less resistance.

It's basically making people more a part of the solution than a part of the problem.

And? Your point is? I don't see anything wrong with those names.

Nothing is wrong with them. But they're all white-sounding names. If people are hiring based on how common a name is, and the most common names are white, then whites are being favored over blacks based on name alone...which is not an indication of how qualified an individual is for the job.

I don't know about resumes being seen....all the study indicates is call backs.

If your resume isn't even seen, then you won't be called back.

Well it might only mean that you're a minority in that nation.

Which should mean some representation in pop culture, at least. As I said, that has improved over time, so progress has been made. But I'd still like to see more...to the point where any talented black kid has as much a chance to be successful as any talented white kid.

I meant more like "approve".

I suppose so...in much the same way I approve of a gentle breeze cooling me down on a hot day, or the rain making flowers grow.

I'd like to at least see him in a similar role first.

Ever see the BBC series Luther? He plays a cop, a brilliant detective also prone to violence. Not dissimilar to a certain spy whose author describes as a "blunt instrument."

It's defying tradition in exactly the same way as taking a black performer and placing him in a white role. What's hard to understand about that?

Putting black performers in roles previously associated with whites is a relatively new practice; on the other hand, whites playing black roles has considerable history behind it, most obviously being minstrel shows. Also, there have been many musical styles that were marginalized when mostly performed by black artists that only became popular when white performers took over the genre...Elvis Presly being a prominent example.

So taking a black act and making it white isn't defying tradition so much as adhering to it.

Bill Cosby was playing a character though...although if it's the name that bothers you, we could call him Will Cosby.

Bill Cosby is the actor; Cliff Huxtable (et al) is the character.

Your contention was that my observations were incorrect. Your choice to not explain why makes it look like they were correct all along.

I didn't say they were correct or incorrect, only that they were based on assumptions, not facts. It's like throwing lawn darts at night, how close you get to the target is purely a product of luck, and nothing more.

In what way is my assessment wrong?

You assigned racist motivations to the cops investigating, I didn't.

You think this is because of racial bias?

I do, as does he.

What if I told you they have studies (not widely publicized) that dispel that myth?

Which myth is that? He has given me no reason to doubt him, so I'm not going to assume he's lying about having been stopped over 30 times. I know I didn't lie about how many times I was stopped.

Or what if I told you that, as someone who has done multiple traffic stops, you hardly ever know the race/gender/age etc of the driver before stopping them?

What if I told you that they've done studies with red light cameras that indicate blacks run red lights at a disproportionate rate...and a study done on nighttime traffic stops (the idea being that cops were unlikely to see the race of the driver) indicate that our differences between the rate at which whites and blacks get pulled over have nothing to do with racial bias?

Go ahead.

Had a chance yet? I don't want to be the only one looking for facts here...

Is there some specific data in that link you wish to discuss?

Well...

You're saying the sole reason they didn't run is race?

What other factor is there? Surely there have been black people qualified to run for president since the Emancipation Proclamation, why has it taken until 2008 for one to be nominated by a major party?

It's important to find out then isn't it? Much better to find out if it's actually racial bias or perhaps the black community before we start telling people they need to change...or worse, enact policies which might exacerbate the problem.

Okay. Let's assume that the problems in the black community are not due to racial bias at all. What other causes could there be? All we're let with is biology, that black people are more prone to crime than those of other races, that there's something about their race that causes criminal activity.

Except...there really isn't any such thing as race. What we call race is just skin color, and skin color in humans is not a significant biological difference. There is no significant biological difference between a man with black skin and a man with white skin. The only differences between them are cultural, related to social structures and class distinctions.

So we're back to square one.

There are studies that show black neighborhoods have more unsolved crimes...at least with respect to murders. So "if" isn't really the question...

How can you study a lack of data? How can you compare how many crimes we don't know are committed in black neighborhoods with how many crimes we don't know are committed in white neighborhoods?

We can blame police for policing blacks disproportionately...resulting in more blacks in prison/arrested/etc. We could also blame police for not policing blacks enough...resulting in their neighborhoods having more unsolved crimes/murders. We cannot blame the police for both, however...because that would be contradictory and hypocritical. No...racial bias won't explain both problems.

Let's also consider though, that bias isn't the problem at all....and it's entirely possible blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than other races. That actually would explain both problems.

Which leads to the question of why.

Why are black people more prone to criminal activity than white people?

Biology's been ruled out....what other reasons are there?

This is part of what's frustrating about this discussion. You've got no problem jumping to the conclusion that racial bias is at fault when the data is incomplete. Whenever it looks like the problem might be something else though...suddenly incomplete data is a big issue.

Do you want to have this discussion and include data that we can find or understand? Or do you want to discard any incomplete data (which is basically all of it) and just make your argument/position based upon presumptions? You can't have it both ways.

We've got studies that show blacks get pulled over more often than whites. Let's assume those numbers are true...

We've also got studies showing blacks commit more traffic violations (assuming that the police can't identify them as black at night, eliminating racial bias) and run red lights at a disproportionate rate, similar to the rate at which they get pulled over.

We shouldn't even be discussing racial bias at this point...we should be discussing why blacks think they can violate the law more often than other races.

There are two possible reasons: nature or nurture. Rule out biology, and you're left with environment.

I think there's several problems in the black community with regards to how they view police and crime that cause this problem.

And the reason they view the police in such a way is caused by the way cops have acted in the past, which was caused by the way blacks acted which was caused by....

And so on and so on.

This is why assigning blame is counterproductive, there's nore than enough to go around. Which is why I prefer to leave the question of blame aside, and see what we can do to make things better.

Study the past, but don't let it dictate how we act now, and in the future.

So we're jumping to the conclusion that it's racial bias by the police then? Because as far as I'm concerned, we've beaten that horse to death and it's time to consider other causes. Frankly, I don't understand your rationale for jumping to conclusions for this. We've written laws, policies, even given training for the past 30+ years to attempt to eliminate police bias against blacks. Yet the problem hasn't disappeared...or even significantly changed. Blacks are disproportionately represented in crime. Isn't it time to look elsewhere yet?

To where? Biology?

Why not? Why wouldn't a black employer be 50% less likely to hire a white sounding name?

I dunno...are they? Is there data on this?

It was a rather difficult example. Im simply showing how something which can benefit society isn't necessarily desirable at all. You certainly wouldn't want to hurt a white man's chances at a job just to improve a black man's chances....but not everyone on your side is so wise.

If you don't want to hurt a white man's chances to improve a black man's, why would you rather hurt a black man's chances to improve a white man's....because the latter has been going on for a long time now.

That's always a good thing. Do you think inequalities can ever be completely eliminated?

Probably not. But that shouldn't stop us from trying to.

Or do we have to accept that this is a flawed part of human nature at some point and say that we've done all we reasonably can?

You tell me: if you see a character flaw in yourself, do you accept it or do you try, as best you can, to be better?

Could be worth looking into when you get the time. I don't think you'll find too many studies though. The assumption of most of society is that the problem is all on the side of whites...so we're inundated with studies about the views of whites. Part of equality means dropping such assumptions and examining all sides of a problem.

True, but it's not possible to zero the game and restart with a level playing field, life goes on without a reset button. We have to create changes based on what happened before, and try to improve ourselves as we move forward. Which often means swinging the pendulum back in the other direction for a while to effect a fairer balance.

-- A2Sg, and if the swing has always been in your favor, you can imagine how hard it is to accept that it isn't......

 

[A2SG]

Lol I totally forgot about his name on the Cosby show. Fine, we'll call it the Will Cosby show so everyone understand which show's tradition we're breaking.

Is it still a good tradition to break?

If you prefer...we could use the 90s show Martin as an example.

Either way....if we take a historically black art form and use white actors instead, we've got us a minstrel show. Minstrel shows were very popular in the late 19th century, so how would that be breaking tradition, exactly?

-- A2SG, and besides, there'll never be another Jolson.....

 

[A2SG]

I don't know that I'd use the words "quite good"...

You asked my opinion and I gave it. If my opinion sounds "quite good" to you...you can characterize it that way if you like, but own it....It's your interpretation of what I said.




Whoa...why is my opinion suddenly an "example of white privilege"?

I'd like an answer to that before I respond to the rest of your post.

If you think my opinion is inaccurate, or incomplete in some way...by all means, say that and kindly explain why.

What you said, however, makes it sound like my opinion doesn't matter or should be discounted because...I'm white. I know you're not that racist (at least I hope so) so please explain what you meant by that comment before I proceed.

After all, there's not much point to continuing this discussion if you intend to disregard what I say because I'm white.

Sorry if it sounded that way. Let me try to explain better.

I know black people for whom racial bias is a daily problem. They encounter discrimination on a regular basis, in a hundred different ways. Ways that you and I would never see, because we don't face them. Now, I don't mean to say these are all major things, not like there are daily lynchings or anything, but racial bias played out nevertheless:

Seeing people push their children behind them if a black man approaches; seeing people cross the street if a handful of black kids are near; having the cops called if a group of black kids are getting a bit loud on a public street, even as the white kids a block away are even louder; everyone casting an eye toward the only black person in the office if someone notices something missing.

Yes, these things happen. And as a white person, we don't see them because they don't happen to us.

So, to be able to believe that such things can't possibly exist is a case of white privilege; black people don't get to have that belief, because they see them, all the time. Oftentimes, they're subtle, and won't even be statistically significant if put on paper, but they make up daily reality for a lot of black people.

White people get to think that racism isn't a big deal because, for them, it isn't. That's a privilege not everyone gets.

-- A2SG, and one that can't ever been seen, unless you put on a different color skin.....

 

[Rick Otto]

Ok? I'm not sure what you mean by that...but I'm all ears if you feel like explaining.

I guess I'm still horrified at your finding plague survivors "better off" simply because so many dead leave them more stuff.
It will take more time and effort than I'm sure you'd be willing to make, to redeem yourself in my eyes.

 

[Rick Otto]

Sorry if it sounded that way. Let me try to explain better.

I know black people for whom racial bias is a daily problem. They encounter discrimination on a regular basis, in a hundred different ways. Ways that you and I would never see, because we don't face them. Now, I don't mean to say these are all major things, not like there are daily lynchings or anything, but racial bias played out nevertheless:

Seeing people push their children behind them if a black man approaches; seeing people cross the street if a handful of black kids are near; having the cops called if a group of black kids are getting a bit loud on a public street, even as the white kids a block away are even louder; everyone casting an eye toward the only black person in the office if someone notices something missing.

Yes, these things happen. And as a white person, we don't see them because they don't happen to us.

So, to be able to believe that such things can't possibly exist is a case of white privilege; black people don't get to have that belief, because they see them, all the time. Oftentimes, they're subtle, and won't even be statistically significant if put on paper, but they make up daily reality for a lot of black people.

White people get to think that racism isn't a big deal because, for them, it isn't. That's a privilege not everyone gets.

-- A2SG, and one that can't ever been seen, unless you put on a different color skin.....

Having an Afro hairstyle, I got called The "N word" quite a lot.
I remember watching them get stalked by salespeople in stores.
But my hair and the experience it brought bought me a pass in their community. I have been in situations where a straight haired blonde wouldn't survive. We were buddies with the house band, so our rock band played at one of their clubs awhile back. There were about 5 white guys in this packed club and three of us were in the band. No problem. They loved us. We only played original music though, no covers.
I have so many interesting stories...

 

[rturner76]

I didn't say that...I'm sure that it's had some effects. However, to characterize the situation of today's black youth as "black slave-white master" is not only a horrible exaggeration...but somewhat racist.

As for society being "negatively affected"...what do you mean by that? Are you saying that things would be improved or in some significant way different if it were a system of "black privilege" that we were living in?




1. I'm not sure that being the most "qualified" necessarily has anything to do with being CEO of a fortune 500 company.

2. Again, I don't know that it has anything to do with discrimination.

3. What does this example have to do with white privilege in the first place? Do you think that the whiteness of CEOs has any sort of advantages or privileges that extend to white people in general? Does it make my life better or in some way make me more likely to be a CEO myself? I can't think of any way in which this impacts my life, your life, or realistically the lives of any of the 350 million or so people in this nation. It's an almost silly suggestion.

I'm not saying today's society is slave/master. I am saying that our society was built on that slave/master relationship. It permeates our society. When I use the example of the CEOs being almost all white I am trying to illustrate that positions of power whether it be CEO,police chief, judges, senator, or any other position of power, it WAS always a white man the position of power. NOW there are some other colors stepping in but it is still 90% white people in those positions of power. The power structure has not changed from the old days. Now laws have been passed and we are supposed to have equality but the white man is still holding just about all the major positions of power in the USA.